Saving Miss Oliver’s

 CIVIL DISCOURSE;  A NEW GRADUATION REQUIREMENT FOR HIGH SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

A proven ability to engage in respectful discourse with those with whom we disagree on fundamental issues; and a consequent openness to the possibility of changing one’s position.This ability has always been important in a democracy where each of us has the power of a vote. Now, as we grow more and more polarized, it is critical.

The courses, starting in middle school, ascending in complexity and ranging  through high school and college, would grapple head on with the most divisive issues – the ones that many of us don’t dare bring up, even with our friends and family members -such as: abortion, affirmative action, the Iraq war, environmental regulation, the role and size of government, capital punishment, immigration, and gun control.

Course designs would include such exercises and expectations as:

We will not debate. We won’t try to win.  We will cooperate in an effort to find the merit in each other’s position, and largest possible area of agreement.

                We will get to know one another as real people, not as conservatives or liberals or any other labels. Thus some class time will be devoted to telling: Who I am. This is my background. These are a few of the defining moments in my life so far- and the like.

                All positions( for example: I believe –or don’t believe- in the rightness of the death penalty) will be considered as a starting position, the one I hold now at the beginning of this exercise, at the end of which I will state whether or not it is changed, and if it has, my new position.

                We will never argue about facts. To the best of our ability, we will establish what is factual, statistical, confirmable, gathering all the relevant, factual information, not just what supports a particular position. We will refer to unbiased research and discard any research or argument that seems biased or factually questionable – especially that which agrees with our starting positions.

                In discussions, we will frequently stop and paraphrase what a classmate has just said and ask the question: do I paraphrase you correctly? Do I understand accurately? This forces close attention and makes it almost impossible to think up counter-arguments while the other person is talking.   

While some class members are engaged in a discussion, others will observe and judge the quality of the discussion and report that judgment to the class.

We will embrace complexity, nuance, and regard generalizations with suspicion.

Teachers will act as facilitators of the process – not as participants in the discussion.

Let’s imagine, for instance a congress and senate whose members are endowed with this skill put there by voters also so endowed who demand civil discourse, reliance on facts, true bi-partisanship from their politicians. Wouldn’t the results be a big improvement on the performance we are witnessing now?